Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 143

Thread: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

  1. #81
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The effectiveness of social programs is not the topic of this thread.
    It is exactly the topic of this thread, and it is exactly the topic upon which you have chosen to focus attention.

    Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by elevating poor people to levels of economic self sufficiency and prosperity. Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by educating poor people to facilitate their economic self sufficiency and prosperity.

    (Side note: because effective social programs would eventually render themselves unnecessary, it follows that government bureaucracy, which invariably seeks its own perpetuation, will not pursue effective social programs.)

    Social program which presume to justify killing unborn children as a means of cost control cannot be either elevating or educating poor people--the cost containment pressure would not exist if such programs were indeed elevating and educating poor people. Thus, such social programs of necessity regard poor people as a parasite, a burden to be dispensed with at a minimum cost and with a minimum of effort.

    Earlier you asked who said you resent poor people. The answer is obvious: you have said this. In justifying abortion as cost control for welfare, you have said exactly this. In putting forward abortion among the poor as an economic necessity, you despise and contemn the poor.

  2. #82
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    No, but it has diverged to such. Thus the reason it was brought up.

    Specifically, you believe that the poor are a burden on society, to be given crumbs to survive, and allowed to kill themselves off otherwise.

    Amazingly you don't realize the moral flaw in your position.
    What in God's name are you babbling about?

    Give them crumbs to survive? I believe in a strong social safety net. And where the hell did I say anything about them killing themselves off otherwise? If you're referring to the "let Darwinism take care of the problem" comment, that was apdst. Not me.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #83
    Conservative Independent
    DarkWizard12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Tyler TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And how does preventing a huge number of poor kids from being born detract from that? I'm not advocating the complete elimination of reproduction.
    Your kidding right? That's like wondering how stealing silver forks from your neighbor's house detracts from the value of your neighbor's silverware.
    Having kids that you (or society) can't afford is undesirable.
    What do you mean "Afford"? in caveman days, did people not need money to raise children?

    Or better yet, why do you care? Just because you support anti-poverty and children-programs, that somehow gives you the right to judge which kids are worthy and which are "undesirable" before even out of the womb?

    You have no way of knowing in advance which child is going to be the next Barack Obama. All we have are statistics which indicate that the poor are more likely to drain society's resources.
    You have no way of knowing which will drain resources either. You can't, and shouldn't, be able to do anything untill you somehow invent a technology that can "pinpoint" which fetuses will become criminals, and which ones will be relative successes. Untill then, you should just assume that every fetus is "innocent" from becoming "undesirable".
    I fully support anti-poverty social programs, so yes, I think a society is judged (to some degree) on how it treats its worst-off citizens. That doesn't mean we can't take prudent steps to limiting the number of worst-off citizens. On the contrary, it means that we'll have more resources to take care of the ones we do have, for less taxpayer money.
    And your willing to support the killing of babies to do that?

  4. #84
    Conservative Independent
    DarkWizard12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Tyler TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    It is exactly the topic of this thread, and it is exactly the topic upon which you have chosen to focus attention.

    Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by elevating poor people to levels of economic self sufficiency and prosperity. Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by educating poor people to facilitate their economic self sufficiency and prosperity.

    (Side note: because effective social programs would eventually render themselves unnecessary, it follows that government bureaucracy, which invariably seeks its own perpetuation, will not pursue effective social programs.)

    Social program which presume to justify killing unborn children as a means of cost control cannot be either elevating or educating poor people--the cost containment pressure would not exist if such programs were indeed elevating and educating poor people. Thus, such social programs of necessity regard poor people as a parasite, a burden to be dispensed with at a minimum cost and with a minimum of effort.

    Earlier you asked who said you resent poor people. The answer is obvious: you have said this. In justifying abortion as cost control for welfare, you have said exactly this. In putting forward abortion among the poor as an economic necessity, you despise and contemn the poor.
    I don't know about you, but This logic just REEEKS of the left-overs of the eugenics movement. Remember how that turned out?

  5. #85
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    It is exactly the topic of this thread, and it is exactly the topic upon which you have chosen to focus attention.
    No I have not. I suggested that helping poor people prevent or terminate unwanted pregnancies will result in a reduction in the cost to society of the child. I am not arguing about the effectiveness or the morality of the social programs themselves; that's a topic for another thread. But surely you would concede that the programs do exist? And that their main beneficiaries are the poor?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by elevating poor people to levels of economic self sufficiency and prosperity. Effective social programs would end or reduce poverty by educating poor people to facilitate their economic self sufficiency and prosperity.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    (Side note: because effective social programs would eventually render themselves unnecessary, it follows that government bureaucracy, which invariably seeks its own perpetuation, will not pursue effective social programs.)
    Many countries HAVE pursued effective social programs, thus blowing a hole in your theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Social program which presume to justify killing unborn children as a means of cost control cannot be either elevating or educating poor people--the cost containment pressure would not exist if such programs were indeed elevating and educating poor people. Thus, such social programs of necessity regard poor people as a parasite, a burden to be dispensed with at a minimum cost and with a minimum of effort.
    Just because you are unwilling to consider the economic aspect of this doesn't mean that there is no economic aspect of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Earlier you asked who said you resent poor people. The answer is obvious: you have said this. In justifying abortion as cost control for welfare, you have said exactly this. In putting forward abortion among the poor as an economic necessity, you despise and contemn the poor.
    So if favoring sensible cost control strategies for social programs means that I hate the poor, what does that make the people who want to eliminate the programs altogether?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #86
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12 View Post
    I don't know about you, but This logic just REEEKS of the left-overs of the eugenics movement. Remember how that turned out?
    Horribly...just ask a certain James T Kirk:
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MKJ4xJVsI&feature=related"]YouTube - Captain Kirk losing it[/ame]

    (Yeah, I know, I really shouldn't admit such things, but talk of eugenics always brings out my inner Trekkie! )

  7. #87
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12 View Post
    Your kidding right? That's like wondering how stealing silver forks from your neighbor's house detracts from the value of your neighbor's silverware.
    That is a ridiculous comparison. If abortion is legal and contraception is available, some people will choose to have babies. Some people will choose not to.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12
    What do you mean "Afford"? in caveman days, did people not need money to raise children?
    No they did not. But now they do. What's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12
    Or better yet, why do you care? Just because you support anti-poverty and children-programs, that somehow gives you the right to judge which kids are worthy and which are "undesirable" before even out of the womb?
    If I was advocating some kind of coercive method, you might have a point. But I'm not, so you don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12
    You have no way of knowing which will drain resources either. You can't, and shouldn't, be able to do anything untill you somehow invent a technology that can "pinpoint" which fetuses will become criminals, and which ones will be relative successes. Untill then, you should just assume that every fetus is "innocent" from becoming "undesirable".
    It makes sense to encourage the poor to limit the number of children they have. I fail to see why this point is so controversial...ESPECIALLY from someone who bitches about the evil liberals stealing his money to pay for social programs.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12
    And your willing to support the killing of babies to do that?
    Show me where I've ever advocated violence toward anyone in this thread.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-11-09 at 12:24 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #88
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No I have not. I suggested that helping poor people prevent or terminate unwanted pregnancies will result in a reduction in the cost to society of the child. I am not arguing about the effectiveness or the morality of the social programs themselves; that's a topic for another thread. But surely you would concede that the programs do exist? And that their main beneficiaries are the poor?
    Children are not costs, not to their parents nor to society. This is the point you refuse to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Many countries HAVE pursued effective social programs, thus blowing a hole in your theory.
    With every economy in the G20 contracting and experiencing declines in tax revenue, the indebtedness such programs represent demonstrates the laughable nature of your statement. No, the programs are not effective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Just because you are unwilling to consider the economic aspect of this doesn't mean that there is no economic aspect of it.
    Straw man. There economic aspects in every aspect of society. That does not make economic considerations of necessity the arbiter of morals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    So if favoring sensible cost control strategies for social programs means that I hate the poor, what does that make the people who want to eliminate the programs altogether?
    Charitable, caring, and compassionate people who recognize that elevating poor people begins by ending the perpetual dependency that is the legacy of the welfare state.

  9. #89
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Children are not costs, not to their parents nor to society. This is the point you refuse to see.
    Children, especially poor children, have many costs to both their parents and society. If you are denying even that most basic premise, when what you are saying flies right in the face of practically everything you frequently complain about in terms of social programs, then there is really no point in continuing this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    With every economy in the G20 contracting and experiencing declines in tax revenue, the indebtedness such programs represent demonstrates the laughable nature of your statement. No, the programs are not effective.
    Temporary economic problems aside, the programs in many countries are effective at reducing or eliminating poverty, which is what we were talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Straw man. There economic aspects in every aspect of society. That does not make economic considerations of necessity the arbiter of morals.
    Nor does it mean you can just ignore the economics unless you have some compelling moral reason for doing so. And you do not. So far you haven't offered up any rational argument against encouraging the poor to have fewer children.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    Charitable, caring, and compassionate people who recognize that elevating poor people begins by ending the perpetual dependency that is the legacy of the welfare state.
    OK. And how exactly does that conflict with reducing the costs of the welfare state, and therefore the size of government?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-11-09 at 12:31 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #90
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkWizard12 View Post
    I don't know about you, but This logic just REEEKS of the left-overs of the eugenics movement. Remember how that turned out?
    I haven't advocated any murders, compulsory sterilizations, or forced abortions. Don't be such a drama queen.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •